Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37853

1Eligible jurisdictions are those that are eligible

to participate in the National Science Foundation’s

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive

Research (EPSCoR): Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho,

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,

West Virginia, Wyoming and the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico.

ACTION: Receipt of application.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr.

Daniel Costa, Department of Biology and

Institute of marine Sciences, University

of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, has

applied in due form for a permit to take

northern elephant seals (Mirounga

angustirostris) and import samples from

northern and southern elephant seals

(Mirounga leonina) for purposes of

scientific research.

DATES: Written or telefaxed comments

must be received on or before August

13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The application and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment

in the following office(s):

Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130,

Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–

2289); and

Regional Administrator, Southwest

Region, National Marine Fisheries

Service, NOAA, 501 West Ocean

Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA

90802–4213 (562/980–4001).

Written comments or requests for a

public hearing on this application

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits

and Documentation Division, F/PR1,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those

individuals requesting a hearing should

set forth the specific reasons why a

hearing on this particular request would

be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by

facsimile at (301) 713–0376, provided

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy

submitted by mail and postmarked no

later than the closing date of the

comment period. Please note that

comments will not be accepted by email or by other electronic media.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara

Shapiro or Ruth Johnson, 301/713–2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subject permit is requested under the

authority of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, as amended

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the

Regulations Governing the Taking and

Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR

part 216).

The applicant seeks authorization to

continue a long-term study on a broad

suite of behavioral, physiological, and

life history characteristics of northern

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris).

The ultimate goal of the proposed

research is to understand the animal in

its natural habitat, how it makes a

living, and how it reproduces optimally.

In compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial

determination has been made that the

activity proposed is categorically

excluded from the requirement to

prepare an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

NMFS is forwarding copies of this

application to the Marine Mammal

Commission and its Committee of

Scientific Advisors.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18735 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Technology Administration

[Docket No. 980317064–8064–01]

RIN 0692–ZA01

Announcement of Availability of

Funding for Competitions—

Experimental Program To Stimulate

Competitive Technology (EPSCoT)

AGENCY: Office of Technology Policy,

Technology Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Technology

Administration’s Office of Technology

Policy (OTP) announces the availability

of funding for the following competition

to be held in fiscal year 1998 under the

Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Technology (EPSCoT). The

EPSCoT will support technology-based

economic growth in eligible

jurisdictions by promoting partnerships

between state and local governments,

universities, community colleges, nonprofit organizations and the private

sector. This notice provides general

information for the competition planned

for fiscal year 1998.

DATES: Complete applications for the

Fiscal Year 1998 EPSCoT grant program

must be mailed or hand-carried to the

address indicated below and received

by the Technology Administration no

later than 9:00 P.M. EST, August 25,

1998. Postmark date is not sufficient.

Applications which have been provided

to a delivery service will be accepted for

review if the applicant can document

that the application was provided to the

delivery service by August 24, 1998 with

delivery to the address listed below

guaranteed prior to the closing date and

time. Applications will not be accepted

via facsimile machine transmission or

electronic mail.

ADDRESSES: US Dept. of Commerce,

Technology Administration, attn:

EPSCoT Director, Anita Balachandra,

1401 Constitution Avenue NW, HCHB

Room 4418, Washington, DC 20230.

Note: Due to Departmental security

policies, hand carried packages must be

delivered to Rm. 1874.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anita Balachandra, Director of the

Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Technology, Telephone:

(202) 482–1320, Fax: (202) 219–8667,

Email: epscot@ta.doc.gov

Information on the EPSCoT is also

available at: http://www.ta.doc.gov/

epscot

For fax and email inquiries, please

include a name, mailing address, and

phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

The statutory authority for the

EPSCoT is the Federal Technology

Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 3704(c)(11), (12)

and § 3706)

Program Description

The Experimental Program to

Stimulate Competitive Technology

(EPSCoT) will support technology-based

economic growth in eligible

jurisdictions by promoting partnerships

between state and local governments,

universities, community colleges, nonprofit organizations and the private

sector.1 Through these partnerships,

EPSCoT seeks to support local efforts to:

• Build state-wide institutional

capacity to support technology

commercialization

• Create the business climate that is

conducive to technology development,

deployment and diffusion

• Compete in Federal R&D programs

The EPSCoT parallels the National

Science Foundation’s Experimental

Program to Stimulate Competitive

Research (EPSCoR). While EPSCoR’s

primary emphasis is improving the

competitive performance of major

research universities of these

jurisdictions, EPSCoT seeks to support

state efforts to improve the commercial

environment for R&D.

Funding Availability

In fiscal year 1998,
37854 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

2The Technology Administration reserves the

right to make an exception in the event that an

organization submits a single jurisdiction proposal

and that jurisdiction is implicated in a multijurisdictional proposal and both are final

candidates for awards.

• Approximately $1.6 million is

available

• It is anticipated that between four

and six grants will be awarded

• Funding for multiple year awards

will be contingent on the achievement

of annual milestones.

Matching Funds Requirements

The Technology Administration seeks

to develop a partnership with each

EPSCoT jurisdiction. To achieve the

objectives of the EPSCoT, both parties

must contribute to EPSCoT initiatives.

• Grant recipients under this program

are required to provide matching funds

toward the total project cost

• For single-jurisdiction proposals TA

will provide up to 50% of the total

project cost

• For multi-jurisdictional proposals

TA will provide up to 75% of the total

project cost

• Applicants must document the

capacity to supply matching funds

• Matching funds may be in the form

of cash

• In-kind match is permissible only

when the in-kind contribution is

significantly changing the activities that

would otherwise be performed by the

‘‘match’’

• In-kind match may not exceed 25%

of the total project cost

• If an applicant incurs any project

costs prior to the start date negotiated at

the time the award is made, it does so

solely at its own risk of not being

reimbursed by the government and will

not be allowable as ‘‘match.’’

• Federal funds (such as grants)

generally may not be used as matching

funds, except as provided by federal

statute. For information about whether

particular federal funds may be used as

matching funds, the applicant should

contact the federal agency that

administers the funds in question.

Type of Funding Instrument

• The funding instrument for awards

under this program shall be a grant.

Eligible Organizations

Eligible organizations shall be

headquartered in jurisdictions that are

eligible to participate in the National

Science Foundation’s Experimental

Program to Stimulate Competitive

Research (EPSCoR): Alabama, Arkansas,

Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,

Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West

Virginia, Wyoming and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Within these jurisdictions, state, local,

or Indian tribal governments,

community colleges, universities, nonprofit organizations, private (for-profit)

organizations, technology business

centers, business incubators, industry

councils or any combination of these

entities may submit proposals.

• TA shall not award more than one

EPSCoT grant per grant round within a

single jurisdiction2.

• Multi-jurisdictional proposals do

not count as projects submitted by an

organization from a single jurisdiction.

• Entities that are not headquartered

in one of the eligible jurisdictions, such

as national or regional organizations or

federal laboratories, may participate as

partners, but may not serve as lead

organizations.

• The lead organization is the

organization to which funds will be

disbursed—this is the organization that

is listed in Box 5 of Standard Form 424.

Award Period

• Awards will be made for between

12 and 36 months.

• Multiple year awards will be

contingent on the achievement of

annual milestones.

Proposal Format

Application forms

A complete proposal will include the

following:

• Standard Form 424, Application for

Federal Assistance.

• Executive Summary.

• Project Narrative.

• Optional: Appendices, Timelines,

Letters of support.

• Standard Form 424A.

• Budget Narrative.

• Statement of Matching Funds.

• Standard Form 424B; Assurances.

• Standard Form CD–511;

Certifications.

• Standard Form LLL; Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities (if applicable).

Pagination

The pages of an EPSCoT application

should be numbered consecutively,

starting with the first page of the Project

Narrative. Please number the Budget

Narrative and the Statement of Matching

Funds as 424A–1, 424A–2, etc.

Applicants may insert a Table of

Contents after the Standard Form 424

and before the Project Narrative to assist

reviewers in locating information.

Page Formats

The proposal should be typed, singlespaced, on 81⁄2′′ x 11′′ paper. All text

should be prepared using a font of no

less than 12 points with margins of no

less than one inch (1′′).

Total Number of Copies

TA requests that each applicant

submit one (1) original signed proposal

and two (2) copies. The copy with

original signatures should clearly be

marked ‘‘Original.’’ Each duplicate

should be clearly marked ‘‘Copy.’’ The

copy marked ‘‘Original’’ must be

clipped with a binder clip. The two

copies must each be stapled.

Signatures

Signatures are required in the

following places in the application

• Bottom (box 18d) of Standard Form

424, Application for Federal Assistance

• Back page of Standard Form 424B,

Assurances

• Bottom of back page of Standard

Form CD–511, Certifications

• Bottom of Standard Form LLL,

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if

applicable)

Standard Forms 424, 424B, CD–511

and LLL should be signed by someone

who is authorized to commit the

applicant organization(s), such as the

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial

Officer, President, or Executive Director.

Original signatures should be in blue

ink so that the original proposal can be

easily distinguished from the duplicate

copies.

Page Limit

The total proposal must not exceed 50

pages, including eight pages for the

Project Narrative and a 125 word

Executive Summary. The 50-page limit

includes all text, tables, illustrations,

maps, letters, references, resumes and

supporting documents, excluding the

Standard Forms and all budget

information. Quality, not quantity, is

what counts!

Contact Information

Applicants must provide the

following contact information on

Standard Form 424:

• Legal name (of the organization)

• Complete mailing address

• Telephone number

• Name of a contact individual

• Electronic mail address, if any

If any of this contact information

changes after the application is

submitted, the applicant must

immediately notify EPSCoT in writing.

Narrative Elements

Each proposal must address the

following. It is recommended that the

project narrative be organized in these

five sections.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37855

(1) Scope of Proposed Project

• Describe how the proposed activity

was identified

• Describe how the proposed activity

will improve the jurisdiction’s capacity

to support technology-based economic

development

• Explain why the proposed activity

is a good investment of Federal funds

(2) Project Management

• Describe the qualifications of

personnel

• Describe how the project will be

managed

• Describe how decisions will be

made between and among partners

(3) Coordination within and/or among

Jurisdictions

• Describe how the proposed activity

relates to, or builds upon, the strategic

plans developed for economic

development, science & technology and

NSF EPSCoR

• Describe how collaborators were

identified

• Describe how participating

organizations will benefit from the

proposed activity

(4) Financial Plan

• Describe how funds will be

allocated, given the project timeline and

milestones

• Demonstrate your ability to procure

matching funds

• Describe the quality of match: while

in-kind contributions are allowable,

preference will be given to those that are

able to procure a cash match

(5) Evaluation

• Describe the appropriate outcomemeasures for the proposed activity

• Detail the timeline for the proposed

activity (include specific milestones)

Freedom of Information Act

Because of the high level of public

interest in projects supported by the

EPSCoT, the program anticipates

receiving requests for copies of

successful applications. Applicants are

hereby notified that the applications

they submit are subject to the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA). Applicants

may identify sensitive information and

label it ‘‘confidential’’ to assist TA in

making disclosure determinations.

Funding Priorities

EPSCoT’s funding priorities are the

effective use of partnerships and

outreach to underserved areas. EPSCoT

funds are not intended for the

construction of facilities. Given the

central role that technology plays in

economic growth, all jurisdictions—

federal, state and local—are concerned

with creating and maintaining the

conditions that are conducive to the

development of new technologies, and

the adoption and diffusion of existing

ones.

EPSCoT is meant to assist

jurisdictions in their attempts to

promote technology-based economic

growth by improving the commercial

environment for R&D. A strategy for

doing so should build on the resources

of the state government, research

universities, community colleges,

vocational schools, business

community, finance community and

any Federal resources the jurisdiction

may have, such as national labs,

manufacturing extension centers, or

technology transfer centers. To this end,

applicants must demonstrate that they

are developing robust teaming

arrangements between and among

participating organizations.

EPSCoT awards will be competitively

selected and cost-shared. They will be

of a finite duration, ranging from 12 to

36 months, EPSCoT grants must create

activities that will become self-sufficient

OR create change within the grant life.

This way the EPSCoT can support the

most innovative projects with the

expectation that projects will create new

knowledge, develop successful

institutional relationships, demonstrate

new concepts that can be replicated, or

develop concepts that can be sustained

by other organizations at the end of the

grant life. These grants should either

obtain the desired outcome within the

life of the grant or should serve as

‘‘seed’’ capital to initiatives that will be

self-sustaining after the grant. It is

intended that EPSCoT projects will

serve as models for other jurisdictions.

Multi-jurisdictional Proposals

Recognizing that a regional economy

may not always fit within the

boundaries of one jurisdiction, the

Technology Administration will

consider proposals for multi-jurisdiction

projects. The requirement of matching

funds is reduced for multi-jurisdiction

proposals. Applicants will be expected

to demonstrate the proposed activity’s

importance to the stated economic

development priorities of the

participating jurisdictions. Multijurisdiction proposals will not be

considered against each jurisdiction’s

total.

Jurisdictional Coordination

Coordination within jurisdictions is a

principal priority of the EPSCoT.

Multiple proposals from the same

jurisdiction will be scrutinized

carefully, not only for redundancy, but

also to determine whether the proposed

activities will be carried out in isolation.

Single proposals representing

collaboration between stakeholders in a

particular jurisdiction will be reviewed

more favorably.

Applicants are required to

demonstrate familiarity with the

strategic plans developed by the

jurisdiction’s EPSCoR Committee,

economic development agency and/or

science & technology council. The

proposed activity should clearly build

on the stated priorities of these plans.

Examples of Eligible Project Ideas

The EPSCoT aims to foster innovative,

collaborative approaches to improve

competitiveness; examples of eligible

project ideas include, but are not

limited to, the following:

Technology Access Database

In order to assist small firms in

accessing the technological resources of

local universities, a jurisdiction could

establish a comprehensive database of

research areas and contact information.

Such an effort would involve significant

research to identify and categorize

research areas, construct a database that

is easily searchable, and then make the

database widely available.

Technology Access Workshops

In order to assist small firms in

accessing the technological resources of

local universities, a jurisdiction could

conduct outreach workshops. Such an

effort would involve a cluster analysis

of the small business community, an

inventory of the technological resources

available in the local universities, and

then a series of workshops.

Increasing Participation in Federal R&D

Programs

A jurisdiction could develop

mechanisms to increase its participation

in Federal R&D programs such as the

Small Business Innovation Research

Program (SBIR) or the Advanced

Technology Program (ATP). Such an

effort might involve assistance programs

that conduct outreach workshops to

small businesses, as well as other

service providers, to provide

information about these programs and/

or commercialization assistance for

firms after participation in the program.

Technology Transfer

Several jurisdictions have

investigated and identified barriers to

university-industry collaboration.

Eliminating these barriers can facilitate

technology transfer. Such an effort

might begin with altering the riskreward structure to create a climate, or
37856 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

‘‘market,’’ for technology transfer within

universities, and go on to include

harmonizing technology transfer

mechanisms across universities.

Business Incubators

A jurisdiction could establish a

virtual business incubator to foster the

growth of small technology-intensive

businesses in underserved areas. Such

an effort might involve a variety of

partnerships; for example, between

faculty and students from a university’s

business administration and engineering

programs, between existing business

incubators and universities, or between

universities, community colleges and

economic development agencies.

Among other things, a virtual incubator

could provide online entrepreneurship

training, including assistance with

business planning and market

development.

Co-op Opportunities

A jurisdiction could develop co-op

opportunities between universities and

businesses to increase interactions

between students and private-sector

companies. Such an effort might involve

cross-placement of engineering and

business students.

Strategic Planning

A jurisdiction could apply for a

planning grant. A planning effort

involving the research community,

economic development agencies, private

sector, science & technology councils,

community colleges, and/or vocational

schools, would ideally build on

previous plans and integrate the

complementary but distinct missions of

the participating organizations toward

common goals.

Consortia

Having conducted a comprehensive

cluster analysis, a jurisdiction may

conclude that seemingly disparate

nascent clusters in fact have common

interests and needs. When no single

industry cluster is large enough to

sustain an exclusive effort, companies,

university researchers and public

agencies might form a consortium to

address issues of common interest.

Reaping the Investment in Human

Capital

A jurisdiction might seek to retain a

greater share of its skilled labor. This

might involve developing a

manufacturing strategy that ties together

the jurisdiction’s industrial base and the

jurisdiction’s universities and

community colleges so that there are

more local employment opportunities

for graduates in science and technology

fields.

Industry Councils

Having undertaken an analysis to

identify industry clusters and key

industries, a jurisdiction could work

with resident companies to set up

industry councils bringing together

producers, suppliers, and university

researchers. With a minimum of

overhead, such councils could serve as

fora for identifying and addressing

issues of common interest, host

networking events, and, as appropriate,

conduct outreach activities or

implement apprenticeship programs.

Regional Cooperative Efforts

Any of the projects described above

could be launched on a regional scale.

A group of jurisdictions could work

together to identify industry clusters

and develop strategies to support those

clusters. For example, such an initiative

could improve technology access for

microenterprises by harmonizing the

technology licensing practices among

the universities in participating

jurisdictions. A group of jurisdictions

could also cooperate to link and

leverage their efforts in a specific area,

such as support for SBIR applicants, in

order to provide a more seamless

regional infrastructure.

Other Requirements

Each successful applicant will be

required to travel to Washington and

participate in a 2-day networking

meeting. The purpose of this meeting is

to brief the Technology Administration

on the progress of the funded projects

and to provide awardees with an

opportunity to compare notes with one

another.

In addition, awardees will be required

to provide the Technology

Administration with quarterly progress

reports, consisting of a 1–2 page activity

summary and a 1 page budget summary.

At the end of the grant period, a final

project report is required before the final

disbursement of funds. This report must

explain the contribution of the funded

activity to the jurisdiction’s

competitiveness and measures of its

success.

Selection Process

Each eligible application will first be

reviewed by outside reviewers. Each

reviewer will evaluate applications

according to the evaluation criteria

below.

Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated according

to selection criteria that match the

required format. These criteria will be

weighted equally.

(1) Scope of Proposed Project

Proposals will be evaluated on the

clarity with which they:

• Identify/define a specific problem

or issue that the proposed activity is to

address:

• Identify stakeholders and partners.

• Propose a solution—and specify the

process for identifying this particular

solution.

• Explain why the proposed activity

is a good investment of public funds.

• Demonstrate that the proposed

activity does in fact increase a

jurisdiction or region’s capacity to

support technology-based economic

development.

• Address the needs of underserved

areas.

• Identify specific, quantifiable

measurable outcomes of the proposed

activity. Outcomes should reflect

benefits that are measurable on an

annual basis.

(2) Project Management

• Proposals will be evaluated for the:

• Adequacy of the personnel—their

expertise and ability to carry out the

proposed activity.

• Capabilities of the applicant (lead)

organization.

• Clarity of the management plan,

including the identification of partners.

• Likelihood that the proposed

activity will be completed within the

grant life, or become self-sustaining

afterward.

(3) Coordination within and/or among

Jurisdictions

Proposals will be evaluated for the:

• Emphasis on robust teaming

arrangements between disparate

organizations.

• Degree to which the proposed

activity builds upon the complementary

missions of the participating

organizations.

• Strength and diversity of support

for the project within the jurisdiction.

• Partnerships involved—they must

be clearly defined, mutually beneficial,

and the commitments well documented.

• Demonstrated understanding of the

strategic plans developed by the

jurisdiction’s EPSCoR committee,

economic development agency and/or

science and technology council. The

proposed activity should reflect or build

upon the stated priorities of these plans.

(4) Financial Plan

Proposed will be evaluated for the:

• Budget plan—it should be

sufficiently detailed so that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37857

relationship between budget items and

milestones in the project narrative is

clear. Also, the budget should allow

sufficient funds for evaluation,

dissemination of results and

participation in one networking meeting

in Washington, DC.

• Reasonableness of costs.

• Demonstrated ability to provide or

procure matching funds.

• Quality of match: while in-kind

contributions are allowable, preference

will be given to those that are able to

(deliver) a cash match.

(5) Evaluation

Each proposal must include a plan for

evaluating the project and a plan for

disseminating knowledge gained from

the project. The evaluation plan should

include both quantitative and

qualitative indicators and must identify

specific evaluation methods. The

evaluation plan should also capture the

lessons learned during the project that

will serve as pragmatic tips for others

interested in replicating or adapting the

project in other regions. Applications

must include the qualifications of any

proposed evaluators and sufficient

funds in the budget to perform a

thorough and useful evaluation of the

project.

Finally, applicants must demonstrate

a willingness to share information about

their projects with interested parties, to

host site visits, and to participate in

demonstrations.

Each reviewer will make non-building

recommendations to a committee of

Federal officials, chaired by the EPSCoT

Director. This committee will prepare

and present a set of recommended grant

awards to the Selecting Official, the

Under Secretary for Technology. The

Committee’s recommendations and the

Under Secretary’s review and approval

will take into account the following:

• The evaluations of the outside

reviewers.

• The degree to which the slate of

applications, taken as a whole, satisfies

the program’s stated purposes.

• The variety of the proposed

activities.

• The availability of funds.

• The geographic distribution of the

proposed grant awards.

• Avoidance of redundancy and

conflicts with the initiatives of other

federal agencies.

Additional Requirements

Primary Application Certifications

All primary applicant institutions

must submit a completed form CD–511,

‘‘Certifications Regarding Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements and Lobbying,’’ and the

following explanations must be

provided:

(1) Non-procurement Debarment and

Suspension. Prospective participants (as

defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 105)

are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, ‘‘Nonprocurement Debarment and

Suspension’’ and the related section of

the certification form prescribed above

applies;

(2) Drug-Free Workplace. Grantees (as

defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 605)

are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, Subpart

F, ‘‘Government-wide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)’’ and the

related section of the certification form

prescribed above applies;

(3) Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as defined

at 15 CFR Part 28, Section 105) are

subject to the lobbying provisions of 31

U.S.C. 1352, ‘‘Limitation on use of

appropriated funds to influence certain

Federal contracting and financial

transactions,’’ and the lobbying section

of the certification form prescribed

above applies to applications/bids for

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts for more than $100,000, and

loans and loan guarantees for more than

$150,000, or the single family maximum

mortgage limit for affected programs,

whichever is greater.

(4) Anti-Lobbying Disclosure. Any

applicant institution that has paid or

will pay for lobbying using any funds

must submit an SF–LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities,’’ as required under

15 CFR Part 28, Appendix B.

(5) Lower-Tier Certifications.

Recipients shall require applicant/

bidder institutions for subgrants,

contracts, subcontracts, or other lower

tier covered transactions at any tier

under the award to submit, if

applicable, a completed Form CD–512,

‘‘Certifications Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered

Transactions and Lobbying’’ and

disclosure form, SF–LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities.’’ Form CD–512 is

intended for the use of recipients and

should not be transmitted to TA. SF–

LLL submitted by any tier recipient or

subrecipient should be submitted to TA

in accordance with the instructions

contained in the award document.

Name Check Reviews

All for-profit and non-profit

applicants will be subject to a name

check review process. Name checks are

intended to reveal if any individuals

associated with the applicant have been

convicted of or are presently facing,

criminal charges such as fraud, theft,

perjury, or other matters which

significantly reflect on the applicant’s

management honesty or financial

integrity.

Preaward Activities

Applicants (or their institutions) who

incur any costs prior to an award being

made do so solely at their own risk of

not being reimbursed by the

Government. Notwithstanding any

verbal assurance that may have been

provided, there is no obligation on the

part of TA to cover pre-award costs.

No Obligation for Future Funding

If an application is accepted for

funding, TA has no obligation to

provide any additional future funding in

connection with that award. Renewal of

an award to increase funding or extend

the period of performance is at the total

discretion of TA.

Past Performance

Unsatisfactory performance under

prior Federal awards may result in an

application not being considered for

funding.

False Statements

A false statement on an application is

grounds for denial or termination of

funds, and grounds for possible

punishment by a fine or imprisonment

as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Waiver Authority

It is the general intent of TA not to

waive any of the provisions set forth in

this Notice. However, under

extraordinary circumstances and when

it is in the best interests of the federal

government, TA, upon its own initiative

or when requested, may waive the

provisions in this Notice. Waivers may

only be granted for requirements that

are discretionary and not mandated by

statute. Any request for a waiver must

set forth the extraordinary

circumstances for the request and be

included in the application or sent to

the address provided in the

‘‘Addresses’’ section above. The final

determination will be made by the

Selecting Official, the Under Secretary

for Technology. TA will not consider a

request to waive the application

deadline for an application until the

application has been received.

Delinquent Federal Debts

No award of Federal funds shall be

made to an applicant who has an

outstanding delinquent Federal debt

until either:

(1) The delinquent account is paid in

full,

(2) A negotiated repayment schedule

is established and at least one payment

is received, or
37858 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

(3) Other arrangements satisfactory to

DoC are made.

Indirect Costs

No Federal funds will be authorized

for Indirect Costs (IDC); however, an

applicant may provide for IDC under

their portion of Cost Sharing.

The total dollar amount of the indirect

costs proposed in an application under

this program must not exceed the

indirect cost rate negotiated and

approved by a cognizant Federal agency

prior to the proposed effective date of

the award or 100 percent of the total

proposed direct costs dollar amount in

the application, whichever is less.

Purchase of American-Made Equipment

and Products

Applicants are hereby notified that

they are encouraged, to the greatest

practicable extent, to purchase

American-made equipment and

products with funding provided under

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice involves collections of

information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), which have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control

Numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 0348–

0040 and 0348–0046. Notwithstanding

any other provision of law no person is

required to respond to nor shall a

person be subject to a penalty for failure

to comply with a collection of

information subject to the requirements

of the PRA unless that collection

displays a current valid OMB control

number.

Federal Policies and Procedures

Recipients and subrecipients under

the Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Technology (EPSoT) shall

be subject to all Federal laws and

Federal and Departmental regulations,

policies, and procedures applicable to

financial assistance awards.

Intergovernmenal Review

Applicants are reminded of the

applicability of Executive Order 12372,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs.’’

Executive Order Statement

This funding notice was determined

to be ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

Gary R. Bachula,

Acting Under Secretary for Technology.

[FR Doc. 98–18660 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–18–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Proposed Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) for the M1 Abrams

Main Battle Tank Heavy Armor System

AGENCY: U.S. Army Program Executive

Office, Ground Combat & Support

Systems, Warren, MI.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 and Army Regulation

(AR) 200–2, the proposed FONSI for the

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank Heavy

Armor System is being published for

comment.

The U.S. Army Program Executive

Office, Ground Combat & Support

Systems (PEO–GCSS) has prepared a

draft Environmental Assessment for the

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Heavy Armor System. The current use

of the depleted uranium (DU) armor

package on the Abrams MBT has been

re-evaluated to determine whether the

environmental impacts of its continued

use remain insignificant, taking into

consideration the current use of the tank

and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s (NRC’s) reduction in

allowable radiation exposure from 500

mrem/year to 100 mrem/year for tank

and maintenance crews (individual

members of the public).

As in already-fielded weapon system,

M1 MBTs have been in production and

in the field since the early 1980s. During

that time, many technical,

environmental and health assessments

have been completed. These documents

have addressed and minimized

environmental impacts. As part of the

continuing analysis effort, this EA

focuses specifically on the assembly,

use, repair and disposal of the heavy

armor package.

DATES: Comments must be received not

later than August 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning this proposed

action should be submitted within 45

days of the date of this publication and

directed to Mr. Dennis Sweers, Abrams

Program Management Office, Program

Executive Office, Ground Combat and

Support Systems, ATTN: SFAE–GCSS–

W–AB–SM, Warren, MI 48397–5000.

Telephone number: (810) 574–7895, Email address:

sweersd@cc.tacom.army.mil

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Purpose and Need for Proposed

Action

The Abrams Tank System Program

(Abrams), administered by the Project

Manager, Abrams Tank System (PM

Abrams) with support from the U.S.

Army Tank-automotive and Armaments

Command (TACOM), has been using

Depleted Uranium (DU) armor on the

Abrams Tank since 1988. In 1996, a

design change to the armor package was

made by the Army and cut-in to

production by General Dynamics Land

Systems (GDLS) via Change Request

XMPP–2083 in Oct 96 and effective

with Job #1 M1A2 Phase II AUT. The

purpose of this revision to the

Environmental Assessment (EA) is to

assess the environmental impact of the

change from the original DU armor

design to this modified design.

Additionally, although unrelated to this

armor design change, since the last EA,

the NRC’s maximum radiation dose

limits for individual members of the

public has been change from 500 mrem

per year to 100 mrem per year. This

revision assesses the new design against

these new dose limits.

B. The findings of the draft EA of the

M1 Abrams MBT Heavy Army System

support this FONSI. The assessment

was conducted in keeping with the

Army’s environmental stewardship

policy, to ensure that any potential

environmental impacts are fully

mitigated. The EA supports all related

M1 Abrams MBT programs reviewed by

the Defense Acquisition Board.

2. General Description of Action

A. Under the proposed action, the use

of the current depleted uranium (DU)

armor package on the Abrams tank

would be evaluated to determine

whether the environmental impacts of

its continued use remain insignificant,

taking into consideration the current use

of the tank, the armor package design

change instituted in 1996 and changes

in the NRC’s radiation dose limits for

individual members of the public. If it

is determined that the environmental

impacts of use of the DU armor package

remain insignificant, PM Abrams will

continue to produce the armor package

through 2005.

B. The draft Heavy Armor System EA

evaluates the following: tank assembly

activities at Lima Army Tank Plant

(LATP); field operations including crew

maintenance, field support maintenance

and depot maintenance; and

demilitarization. All DU issues which

are not the direct responsibility of PM

Abrams are not covered in the EA, but

have been covered in previous

assessments.

C. In summary, the DU is fabricated

into armor packages by a contractor to

the Department of Energy. The

contractor ships the assembled armor

packages to LATP for installation in the